Columnist: While defense spending in our country is almost certainly

Question

Columnist: While defense spending in our country is almost certainly subject to waste, proposing that we could solve our budget crisis even by entirely eliminating such waste is unjustified. Even dramatic cuts in defense spending will be insufficient to cover the expanding cost of health care.

Which of the following is NOT an assumption required by the columnist’s argument?

Which of the following is NOT an assumption required by the columnist’s argument?

(A) If we cannot cover the expanding cost of health care, then we cannot solve the budget crisis.
(B) If a proposed measure is insufficient to solve a crisis, then proposing it is unjustified.
(C) Eliminating waste in defense spending would constitute a dramatic cut in defense spending.
(D) There are no other means to cover the expanding cost of health care.
(E) The columnist’s calculations are correct and complete.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

ostrick5465 · Answer

Columnist: While defense spending in our country is almost certainly subject to waste, proposing that we could solve our budget crisis even by entirely eliminating such waste is unjustified. Even dramatic cuts in defense spending will be insufficient to cover the expanding cost of health care.

Which of the following is NOT an assumption required by the columnist’s argument?

Which of the following is NOT an assumption required by the columnist’s argument?

(A) If we cannot cover the expanding cost of health care, then we cannot solve the budget crisis.
"Even dramatic cuts in defense spending will be insufficient to cover the expanding cost of health care." => Covering the expanding cost of health care is a must-do.

(B) If a proposed measure is insufficient to solve a crisis, then proposing it is unjustified.
Clearly and easily see this assumption in the first sentence of the argument.

(C) Eliminating waste in defense spending would constitute a dramatic cut in defense spending.
There is a gap between "eliminating waste in defense spending" in the first sentence and "dramatic cuts in defense spending will be insufficient ..." in the second sentences

(D) There are no other means to cover the expanding cost of health care.  
 the argument doesn't say that cut of defense waste is the only way to reduce costs 
 => Correct

(E) The columnist’s calculations are correct and complete.
They concluded the argument without citing any data as if their calculations are all exact.

IMD D

pudu · Answer

(C) Eliminating waste in defense spending would constitute a dramatic cut in defense spending.

this is insignificant because even a dramatic cut in defense spending will not help to resolve the crisis.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Correct answer: D.

Assumptions are always necessary conditions – statements that MUST be true for a conclusion depending on them to have a chance of being true – so if a statement is not an assumption toward a conclusion, it is generally not something that the argument NEEDS to consider as is. Whether or not there are other ways to cover the cost of health care is irrelevant to the question of whether defense spending cuts ought to be seen as a complete solution to the problem, so (D) is the best answer.

shubhim20 · Answer

Bunuel   KarishmaB  Please explain all the option why are they wrong... why not B?

arushi118 · Answer

The passage says that dramatic cuts in defence spending are insufficient and hence such cuts are unjustified. So to go from being insufficient to being unjustified we are required to assume option B.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  Bunuel ,  KarishmaB ,  MartyMurray

In option C, I don't see why it is a necessary assumption. For example let's suppose waste part is 50% of defense budget, and dramatic cut let's assume 90%, argument still stands. Like 50% will eliminate the budget crisis is unjustified, as even dramatic (90%) cut will be insufficient. If 90% cannot cover it, then how come 50% will do (not justified). D is clearly wrong answer, but so does C.

guddo · Answer

Columnist: While defense spending in our country is almost certainly subject to waste, proposing that we could solve our budget crisis even by entirely eliminating such waste is unjustified. Even dramatic cuts in defense spending will be insufficient to cover the expanding cost of health care.

Which of the following is NOT an assumption required by the columnist’s argument?

Which of the following is NOT an assumption required by the columnist’s argument?

The columnist’s logic is: if even very large defense cuts cannot cover the growing health care cost, then eliminating “waste” (which is at most a large cut) cannot solve the budget crisis. This relies on linking “solving the budget crisis” to covering health care costs, and on the idea that proposing a fix is unjustified if it would be insufficient. It does not require assuming there are no other ways to cover health care costs, because the target claim is that eliminating waste  by itself  could solve the crisis.

(A) If we cannot cover the expanding cost of health care, then we cannot solve the budget crisis.

Required. Without this, “cannot cover health care costs” would not imply “cannot solve the budget crisis.”

(B) If a proposed measure is insufficient to solve a crisis, then proposing it is unjustified.

Required. This is the rule that connects “insufficient” to  unjustified .

(C) Eliminating waste in defense spending would constitute a dramatic cut in defense spending.

Required. The columnist moves from “even dramatic cuts are insufficient” to “eliminating waste is insufficient,” so they need eliminating waste to fall within that category (or be smaller).

(D) There are no other means to cover the expanding cost of health care.

Not required. Even if there are other means, the columnist can still say eliminating defense waste alone will not solve the crisis, because the defense cut still would not cover the health care cost that is driving the problem. So this extra claim is not needed.

(E) The columnist’s calculations are correct and complete.

Not required as an assumption in the reasoning structure. The argument can proceed conditionally from its stated claim about insufficiency; this choice is about factual accuracy, not the logical link.

Answer: (D)

Columnist: While defense spending in our country is almost certainly

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Columnist: While defense spending in our country is almost certainly

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards